Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Republic of Macedonia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: In line with other categories
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women video bloggers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.
ℯxplicit 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Störm has created this category, citing
WP:DUPCAT. That the subjects are gendered is not germane to video blogging and of course, this opens up questions about
gender performativity. I think this category should be deleted per
WP:GENDERCAT. Chris Troutman (
talk) 16:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - maybe remove not-diffusing tag. Otherwise, it is totally fine.
Störm(talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Why do editors persist in making or supporting CfD nominations solely on the basis of unevidenced assertion, when anyone with online access to en.wp has online access to powerful research tools?
The evidence is very clear: gender in video blogging is a notable topic of scholarly research. It took me less than a minute to find in one crude search
349 hits on Gscholar and
9 on JSTOR. More sophisticated searches would throw up more. So, contrary to Marcocapelle's assertion, the test at
WP:OCEGRSis satisfied: a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) could indeed be written for such a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:OCEGRS says A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. The fact that an encyclopedic article may be written about women video bloggers does not by itself imply a specific relation between gender and the topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Gender is related to video blogging – it strongly correlates not just with the topic covered and mode of blogging, but also how the output is received by the audience. This is evident given even a cursory review of the industry (
e.g.).
SFB 19:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Not only do we have Brownhairedgirlf's evidence of enough study being done on the intersection of women and video blogging that someone could write a lead article that was something more than a list, but from a structural standpoint this category works. Video blogging is a mix of writing and performing, somewhat like acting but with the performer often being more in control of production than in most acting. Acting is clearly gender specific. The same is true of writing. So this overlap of the two is without question influenced in specific ways by gender.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Best companies to work for awards
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current name is unwieldy, apparently being derived from one of the member pages. It could even be misread as "companies that work for awards". In other cases we hyphenate the compound modifier phrase, but this one is long, and "Best-companies-to-work-for awards" would look daft. I suggest
Category:Employer awards (following one of the parents,
Category:Employers) but would not oppose
Category:Workplace awards. –
FayenaticLondon 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support move to
Category:Employer awards. "Workplace awards" would include a wider array of awards (everything from "Employee of the month" to "sportsperson of the year").
Grutness...wha? 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Groups connected to the Khazars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:selectively upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC. This category is intentionally vague in whether these peoples and tribes are Khazars or not. If they are Khazars they belong in the parent category, but if there is too much doubt then they shouldn't be in the Khazars tree at all. For example, the
Akatziri article says "the theory that they were ancestors of the Khazars is not backed up by any solid evidence".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The meaning of "connected" is indeed vague, but the topic of Khazar connection is notable and significantly discussed. Which groups are to be listed in this category is a good question, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted.
GreyShark (
dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Better still rename to
Category:Khazar peoples. The content seems to be ethnic groups that made up the medieval Khazar state. ( know we also have
Category:Khazar people, but that should be for individual bio-articles.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The target refers to all things concerning the Khazar polity, not just its ethnic groups, which is the content of this cateogry.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the category lists various groups, vaguely linked to the Khazars - sometimes by conspiracy theories or by known forks. Wikipedia shouldn't present theories and forks as facts!
GreyShark (
dibra) 09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Greyshark09: Do I understand correctly that you would prefer to delete the category? The intention of the nomination is roughly along the same lines, in the sense that selectively has been added very deliberately and I also gave an example of an article that should be purged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I oppose the merger. Keep as is.
GreyShark (
dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't get it. Keeping the category as is means keeping a category based on conspiracy theories or known forks which you seem to object.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Selectively upmerge per nom (or delete). I dont understand
User:Greyshark09's objection. DexDor(talk) 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ministry of Catering (Jordan)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete (
WP:NAC). --DexDor(talk) 20:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to exist any such ministry. The google seach did not reveal any such thing except wikipedia categories.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 12:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Likely so. I've tagged this subcategory as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both -- The two people in the ministers category are Prime Ministers (past or present) and neither mentions holding a catering portfolio. If they have and an article on the ministry is created, we can re-create it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I wonder if the original creation was a confusion for "caretaker prime minister"? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Or possibly a mistranslation. I'll have to admit that looking at the creators talk page and contribs list puts some pressure on AGF, too.
Grutness...wha? 23:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It'd be good if someone knowledgeable could look into the creator's contributions, given Grutness's concerns. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to be anything too serious, and it's all old (the editor hasn't contributed for over two years). They seem to have had a habit of removing categories and/or adding or creating unnecessary categories.
Grutness...wha? 01:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People of Cuman descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in it. The Cumans were in the Ukraine from the 11th to the 13th century, then moved on to Hungary and assimilated, so it is very unlikely that these categories will be populated with more (Ukrainian) people who claim Cuman descent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ukrainian item (or rather merge to
Category:Ukrainian people), since the one article does not have that category yet and it will prevent orphaning the article; not sure about the other. This is a classic case of minute categories created to house claims about a person. That person also has Ukrainian people by ethnic descent (which should be a container only, if we need it at all and Ukrainian people of Asian descent, which is equally doubtful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Actually, the category about Ukrainian people of Cuman descent, probably, should be upmerged to the category about people of Cuman descent. Also, user:Peterkingiron speculates on a subject without actually being familiar with it.
Volodymyr Polovets openly declares about the fact that he is of Cuman descent and wrote a monograph about it. Also, the Marcocapelle's claim that Cumans left Ukraine is totally wrong. Cumans were active in intermarriage processes with the
Kievan dukes and actively participated in ethnogenesis of modern Ukrainians leaving a print in Ukrainian toponymy. It is possible that some Cumans also have moved to Hungary as well, but certainly never completely left Ukraine.
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Of course I didn't mean to exclude the possibility of assimilation in Ukraine as well, but the Cumans settled in Ukraine a really long time ago so it will be very hard for anyone to claim Cuman descent, even harder to become wp-notable as a person of Cuman descent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the Ukrainian subcategory, but keep the parent. It's rarely, if ever, possible to properly source a contemporary person's genealogy all the way back to the 13th century, so there's virtually no potential for that to actually grow past a
WP:SMALLCAT. Polovets claiming Cuman ancestry does not mean it's proven that he does have Cuman ancestry, so he shouldn't be upmerged to the general parent category. The parent category, however, more correctly restricts itself to historical figures who were active in the time when Cumans existed, and thus aren't nearly as problematic as trying to prove that a person who's alive today actually belongs here.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I hadn't noticed that the parent category has meanwhile been populated. Honestly I think it is a bit artificial to categorize medieval rulers by their mother's nationality. Descent categories are based on the assumption that people with similar descent have something in common, most particularly that they are part of an ethnic community. While that assumption may not always hold in modern times, it is even less true with medieval rulers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the Ukrainian subcategory, but keep the parent. Sourcing Cuman descent is easy. Sourcing Ukrainian ethnicity is far more difficult.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Barlas
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Doubtful -- We cannot delete it without orphaning the sub-cat, a ruling dynasty. I agree it is small, but occasionally small cats do need to be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The Timurid monarchs subcat has plenty of parent categories, there is no orphaning taking place. The fact that
Timur was from the
Barlas tribe can better be described (and is described) in article space.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Specialist police agencies of India
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Police agencies are law enforcement agencies. In line with other categories and the relevent articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports competitors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no action; a different proposal may be brought forward instead. –
FayenaticLondon 10:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Category:Sportspeople previously had the scope, "people involved in sports in some way", while
Category:Sports competitors had the scope, "People who are notable for practicing sports, i.e. players, not administrators or other non-player roles." This was confusing, as the dictionary definition of sportsperson is "someone who plays sport". I have created
Category:People in sports as a parent, and moved administrators, referees, etc. there. The scope of
Category:Sports competitors now duplicates that of
Category:Sportspeople, and should be up-merged.
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes. All the Fooian people in sports categories will have to be created. I expect that this can be done gradually. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 22:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support reverse merge Despite the dictionary definition, there is some confusion over whether the notion of "sportspeople" includes non-competitors or not. If you look back through the history of
Category:Sportspeople, you can see that
this deletion discussion has already broached this topic before and essentially deleted the current structure (that was not a good move IMHO). There is no ambiguity over the term "sports competitors", thus it is better for categorisation as it clearly delineates the competitors from the new competitor+non-competitor parent category and will avoid rehashing of this argument again.
SFB 20:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The French and German Wikipedias have a solid example for us to follow with "Personnalité liée au sport" parent of "Sportif/Sportive" and "Person (Sport)" parent to "Sportler". The former does beg the question of which level Sportsmen/women should sit at (not sure myself). Just an FYI - I've created "sports figure" as the main occupational topic for "People in sports" on
Wikidata and aligned People in sports to the interwikis over Sportspeople.
SFB 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: No doubt the new parent is very much required. I really don't like that business one. Can you nominate that separately? I think on the sports front we're missing detail article side. The only top level occupation we have is
athlete which is only a subset of sports competitors, as it's exclusive of people towards the games side of sport. I'll have a think about a top level occupation article, possibly something similar to
Legal profession.
SFB 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be opposed to a reverse merge, provided a category redirect template is left behind. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Would you also support the reverse merge (so parent is "People in sports" with "Sports competitors" within that, and a category redirect at "Sportspeople")?
SFB 20:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Admin comment to @
Paul 012,
Marcocapelle,
NaBUru38, and
Sillyfolkboy: As none of the Sportspeople categories have been tagged, I don't find sufficient consensus here to take any action on them. I am minded to close this as "no action", after which one of you may prepare a group nomination for the Sportspeople hierarchy, to pursue the suggested reverse merge. Some of that hierarchy would have to be split, some merged, some renamed; e.g.
Sportsmen and
Sportswomen appear to contain only competitors, whereas other parts would be renamed as "people in sports". Any comments? –
FayenaticLondon 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Yeah, the discussion reached a different conclusion from the original nomination, and one which requires a lot of work (especially the nationality tree). A new nomination set will be needed to recast "Fooian sportspeople" as "Fooian people in sports", though I'm not sure what the best idea for next steps is. Perhaps we could start with creating the new trees for sports competitors first to make the reasoning for such a change more obvious?
SFB 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I would suggest using the renaming process as much as possible, because this retains the page history from the existing categories. But if parts of the "sports competitors" hierarchy don't exist, and the corresponding sportspeople categories currently contain more than competitors, then yes, go ahead and build those parts of the competitors tree. (Oh, and I mentioned
Sportsmen thinking it would need to be renamed as "Male sports competitors", but perhaps the existing names for sportsmen and sportswomen are clear enough already – they may be less ambiguous than sportspeople, in which case they could be retained at the current names but within the competitors tree.) –
FayenaticLondon 21:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Television programmes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all except Canada and Australia. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Local usage trumps category similarity. In the UK (and in the other countries listed) a "program" refers almost solely to computer software (sometimes also to a course or regime), never to television.
Grutness...wha? 05:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Even during the period of GB&I, Ireland was considered as a distinct item, in much the way Scotland and Wales are currently, so I'd say his works should be categorised under Ireland.
Grutness...wha? 23:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support -- This nom is a correct application of ENGVAR.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:ENGVAR. Just to clarify nom's uncertainty about Canada, "program/me" is one of those words where CanE generally aligns with American rather than British spelling (you can certainly find some Canadians who prefer to use the British spelling instead, but it's considered a variant spelling in CanE rather than the standard one.) So Canada should be left at "programs".
Bearcat (
talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clearing that up :)
Grutness...wha? 01:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I'd be willing to do this category.
Artix Kreiger (
talk) 03:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Australian move - while both spellings are acceptable in Australian English, "program" is more common than "programme" - see Macquarie Dictionary source
[1] and media reports
[2] and
this recent RfC. Neutral to other moves --
Whats new?(talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sportspeople who were artists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete Their athletic and artistic careers are irrelevant to each other. Unnecessary intersection.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- It is an interesting intersection. I agree they are unrelated, but that is where category intersections are useful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
List of sportspeople–artists sounds good in my opinion. I find it an interesting intersection as well and I agree on the idea of renaming.
Svedlundp (
talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Listify. As Peterkingiron says, it's an interesting intersection, but I'm not convinced it needs a category. I added a few others including
Jean-Pierre Rives - I was surprised he wasn't already in the category! Note - if kept (or listified), the current name should be changed, as it implies that these are all people who started off as artists and became sportspeople, when the opposite is often the case.
very interesting to learn about
Jean-Pierre Rives, thanks, and that's a good example of its functionality
Svedlundp (
talk) 09:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
List of sportspeople–artists sounds good in my opinion. I find it an interesting intersection as well and I agree on the idea of both listifying and/or renaming.
Svedlundp (
talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. No objection to listifying if desired, but we do not create a category for every possible "People who happen to be both X and Y" combination of occupations, if the intersection is not itself a
WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Listify Not a common defining feature, but unusual enough to warrant a list per above.
SFB 20:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I've moved it into article space at the title shown above (
List of sportspeople–artists) and started to fill it out. Needs more work though.
Grutness...wha? 01:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This came up at Redirects for Discussion, but it appears that the nominator there (
Backendgaming) may have emptied this category and made the redirect themself (I'm not sure on the history). I think categories for discussion is a better place to discuss this, since it largely asked what should be included in the category and whether it should be deleted.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 02:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- while this has been done out of proper process, we should acquiesce in the result.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - are there similar categories for other parts of the world? If so, the "... Asia" category could become a parent.
Grutness...wha? 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a subjective grouping and nearly all the contents are simply focused on East Asian educational culture. The idea of whether that constitutes some kind of overbearing pressure or not is in the eye of the beholder.
SFB 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lebanese communities outside Lebanon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: "X disapora by country" is a well-established category tree, but oddly the Lebanese diaspora (famously large and wide) lacked such a cat. I created
Category:Lebanese diaspora by country this week and request that the non-standard "communities" cat be merged into my newer standardized equivalent. Thanks!
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Republic of Macedonia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: In line with other categories
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women video bloggers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.
ℯxplicit 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Störm has created this category, citing
WP:DUPCAT. That the subjects are gendered is not germane to video blogging and of course, this opens up questions about
gender performativity. I think this category should be deleted per
WP:GENDERCAT. Chris Troutman (
talk) 16:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - maybe remove not-diffusing tag. Otherwise, it is totally fine.
Störm(talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Why do editors persist in making or supporting CfD nominations solely on the basis of unevidenced assertion, when anyone with online access to en.wp has online access to powerful research tools?
The evidence is very clear: gender in video blogging is a notable topic of scholarly research. It took me less than a minute to find in one crude search
349 hits on Gscholar and
9 on JSTOR. More sophisticated searches would throw up more. So, contrary to Marcocapelle's assertion, the test at
WP:OCEGRSis satisfied: a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) could indeed be written for such a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:OCEGRS says A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. The fact that an encyclopedic article may be written about women video bloggers does not by itself imply a specific relation between gender and the topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Gender is related to video blogging – it strongly correlates not just with the topic covered and mode of blogging, but also how the output is received by the audience. This is evident given even a cursory review of the industry (
e.g.).
SFB 19:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Not only do we have Brownhairedgirlf's evidence of enough study being done on the intersection of women and video blogging that someone could write a lead article that was something more than a list, but from a structural standpoint this category works. Video blogging is a mix of writing and performing, somewhat like acting but with the performer often being more in control of production than in most acting. Acting is clearly gender specific. The same is true of writing. So this overlap of the two is without question influenced in specific ways by gender.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Best companies to work for awards
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current name is unwieldy, apparently being derived from one of the member pages. It could even be misread as "companies that work for awards". In other cases we hyphenate the compound modifier phrase, but this one is long, and "Best-companies-to-work-for awards" would look daft. I suggest
Category:Employer awards (following one of the parents,
Category:Employers) but would not oppose
Category:Workplace awards. –
FayenaticLondon 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support move to
Category:Employer awards. "Workplace awards" would include a wider array of awards (everything from "Employee of the month" to "sportsperson of the year").
Grutness...wha? 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Groups connected to the Khazars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:selectively upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC. This category is intentionally vague in whether these peoples and tribes are Khazars or not. If they are Khazars they belong in the parent category, but if there is too much doubt then they shouldn't be in the Khazars tree at all. For example, the
Akatziri article says "the theory that they were ancestors of the Khazars is not backed up by any solid evidence".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The meaning of "connected" is indeed vague, but the topic of Khazar connection is notable and significantly discussed. Which groups are to be listed in this category is a good question, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted.
GreyShark (
dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Better still rename to
Category:Khazar peoples. The content seems to be ethnic groups that made up the medieval Khazar state. ( know we also have
Category:Khazar people, but that should be for individual bio-articles.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The target refers to all things concerning the Khazar polity, not just its ethnic groups, which is the content of this cateogry.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the category lists various groups, vaguely linked to the Khazars - sometimes by conspiracy theories or by known forks. Wikipedia shouldn't present theories and forks as facts!
GreyShark (
dibra) 09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Greyshark09: Do I understand correctly that you would prefer to delete the category? The intention of the nomination is roughly along the same lines, in the sense that selectively has been added very deliberately and I also gave an example of an article that should be purged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I oppose the merger. Keep as is.
GreyShark (
dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't get it. Keeping the category as is means keeping a category based on conspiracy theories or known forks which you seem to object.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Selectively upmerge per nom (or delete). I dont understand
User:Greyshark09's objection. DexDor(talk) 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ministry of Catering (Jordan)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete (
WP:NAC). --DexDor(talk) 20:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to exist any such ministry. The google seach did not reveal any such thing except wikipedia categories.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 12:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Likely so. I've tagged this subcategory as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both -- The two people in the ministers category are Prime Ministers (past or present) and neither mentions holding a catering portfolio. If they have and an article on the ministry is created, we can re-create it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I wonder if the original creation was a confusion for "caretaker prime minister"? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Or possibly a mistranslation. I'll have to admit that looking at the creators talk page and contribs list puts some pressure on AGF, too.
Grutness...wha? 23:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It'd be good if someone knowledgeable could look into the creator's contributions, given Grutness's concerns. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to be anything too serious, and it's all old (the editor hasn't contributed for over two years). They seem to have had a habit of removing categories and/or adding or creating unnecessary categories.
Grutness...wha? 01:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People of Cuman descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in it. The Cumans were in the Ukraine from the 11th to the 13th century, then moved on to Hungary and assimilated, so it is very unlikely that these categories will be populated with more (Ukrainian) people who claim Cuman descent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Ukrainian item (or rather merge to
Category:Ukrainian people), since the one article does not have that category yet and it will prevent orphaning the article; not sure about the other. This is a classic case of minute categories created to house claims about a person. That person also has Ukrainian people by ethnic descent (which should be a container only, if we need it at all and Ukrainian people of Asian descent, which is equally doubtful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Actually, the category about Ukrainian people of Cuman descent, probably, should be upmerged to the category about people of Cuman descent. Also, user:Peterkingiron speculates on a subject without actually being familiar with it.
Volodymyr Polovets openly declares about the fact that he is of Cuman descent and wrote a monograph about it. Also, the Marcocapelle's claim that Cumans left Ukraine is totally wrong. Cumans were active in intermarriage processes with the
Kievan dukes and actively participated in ethnogenesis of modern Ukrainians leaving a print in Ukrainian toponymy. It is possible that some Cumans also have moved to Hungary as well, but certainly never completely left Ukraine.
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk) 21:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Of course I didn't mean to exclude the possibility of assimilation in Ukraine as well, but the Cumans settled in Ukraine a really long time ago so it will be very hard for anyone to claim Cuman descent, even harder to become wp-notable as a person of Cuman descent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the Ukrainian subcategory, but keep the parent. It's rarely, if ever, possible to properly source a contemporary person's genealogy all the way back to the 13th century, so there's virtually no potential for that to actually grow past a
WP:SMALLCAT. Polovets claiming Cuman ancestry does not mean it's proven that he does have Cuman ancestry, so he shouldn't be upmerged to the general parent category. The parent category, however, more correctly restricts itself to historical figures who were active in the time when Cumans existed, and thus aren't nearly as problematic as trying to prove that a person who's alive today actually belongs here.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I hadn't noticed that the parent category has meanwhile been populated. Honestly I think it is a bit artificial to categorize medieval rulers by their mother's nationality. Descent categories are based on the assumption that people with similar descent have something in common, most particularly that they are part of an ethnic community. While that assumption may not always hold in modern times, it is even less true with medieval rulers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the Ukrainian subcategory, but keep the parent. Sourcing Cuman descent is easy. Sourcing Ukrainian ethnicity is far more difficult.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Barlas
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Doubtful -- We cannot delete it without orphaning the sub-cat, a ruling dynasty. I agree it is small, but occasionally small cats do need to be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The Timurid monarchs subcat has plenty of parent categories, there is no orphaning taking place. The fact that
Timur was from the
Barlas tribe can better be described (and is described) in article space.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Specialist police agencies of India
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Police agencies are law enforcement agencies. In line with other categories and the relevent articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports competitors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no action; a different proposal may be brought forward instead. –
FayenaticLondon 10:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Category:Sportspeople previously had the scope, "people involved in sports in some way", while
Category:Sports competitors had the scope, "People who are notable for practicing sports, i.e. players, not administrators or other non-player roles." This was confusing, as the dictionary definition of sportsperson is "someone who plays sport". I have created
Category:People in sports as a parent, and moved administrators, referees, etc. there. The scope of
Category:Sports competitors now duplicates that of
Category:Sportspeople, and should be up-merged.
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes. All the Fooian people in sports categories will have to be created. I expect that this can be done gradually. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 22:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support reverse merge Despite the dictionary definition, there is some confusion over whether the notion of "sportspeople" includes non-competitors or not. If you look back through the history of
Category:Sportspeople, you can see that
this deletion discussion has already broached this topic before and essentially deleted the current structure (that was not a good move IMHO). There is no ambiguity over the term "sports competitors", thus it is better for categorisation as it clearly delineates the competitors from the new competitor+non-competitor parent category and will avoid rehashing of this argument again.
SFB 20:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The French and German Wikipedias have a solid example for us to follow with "Personnalité liée au sport" parent of "Sportif/Sportive" and "Person (Sport)" parent to "Sportler". The former does beg the question of which level Sportsmen/women should sit at (not sure myself). Just an FYI - I've created "sports figure" as the main occupational topic for "People in sports" on
Wikidata and aligned People in sports to the interwikis over Sportspeople.
SFB 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: No doubt the new parent is very much required. I really don't like that business one. Can you nominate that separately? I think on the sports front we're missing detail article side. The only top level occupation we have is
athlete which is only a subset of sports competitors, as it's exclusive of people towards the games side of sport. I'll have a think about a top level occupation article, possibly something similar to
Legal profession.
SFB 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be opposed to a reverse merge, provided a category redirect template is left behind. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Would you also support the reverse merge (so parent is "People in sports" with "Sports competitors" within that, and a category redirect at "Sportspeople")?
SFB 20:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Admin comment to @
Paul 012,
Marcocapelle,
NaBUru38, and
Sillyfolkboy: As none of the Sportspeople categories have been tagged, I don't find sufficient consensus here to take any action on them. I am minded to close this as "no action", after which one of you may prepare a group nomination for the Sportspeople hierarchy, to pursue the suggested reverse merge. Some of that hierarchy would have to be split, some merged, some renamed; e.g.
Sportsmen and
Sportswomen appear to contain only competitors, whereas other parts would be renamed as "people in sports". Any comments? –
FayenaticLondon 10:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Yeah, the discussion reached a different conclusion from the original nomination, and one which requires a lot of work (especially the nationality tree). A new nomination set will be needed to recast "Fooian sportspeople" as "Fooian people in sports", though I'm not sure what the best idea for next steps is. Perhaps we could start with creating the new trees for sports competitors first to make the reasoning for such a change more obvious?
SFB 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I would suggest using the renaming process as much as possible, because this retains the page history from the existing categories. But if parts of the "sports competitors" hierarchy don't exist, and the corresponding sportspeople categories currently contain more than competitors, then yes, go ahead and build those parts of the competitors tree. (Oh, and I mentioned
Sportsmen thinking it would need to be renamed as "Male sports competitors", but perhaps the existing names for sportsmen and sportswomen are clear enough already – they may be less ambiguous than sportspeople, in which case they could be retained at the current names but within the competitors tree.) –
FayenaticLondon 21:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Television programmes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all except Canada and Australia. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Local usage trumps category similarity. In the UK (and in the other countries listed) a "program" refers almost solely to computer software (sometimes also to a course or regime), never to television.
Grutness...wha? 05:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Even during the period of GB&I, Ireland was considered as a distinct item, in much the way Scotland and Wales are currently, so I'd say his works should be categorised under Ireland.
Grutness...wha? 23:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support -- This nom is a correct application of ENGVAR.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:ENGVAR. Just to clarify nom's uncertainty about Canada, "program/me" is one of those words where CanE generally aligns with American rather than British spelling (you can certainly find some Canadians who prefer to use the British spelling instead, but it's considered a variant spelling in CanE rather than the standard one.) So Canada should be left at "programs".
Bearcat (
talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for clearing that up :)
Grutness...wha? 01:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I'd be willing to do this category.
Artix Kreiger (
talk) 03:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose Australian move - while both spellings are acceptable in Australian English, "program" is more common than "programme" - see Macquarie Dictionary source
[1] and media reports
[2] and
this recent RfC. Neutral to other moves --
Whats new?(talk) 10:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sportspeople who were artists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete Their athletic and artistic careers are irrelevant to each other. Unnecessary intersection.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- It is an interesting intersection. I agree they are unrelated, but that is where category intersections are useful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
List of sportspeople–artists sounds good in my opinion. I find it an interesting intersection as well and I agree on the idea of renaming.
Svedlundp (
talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Listify. As Peterkingiron says, it's an interesting intersection, but I'm not convinced it needs a category. I added a few others including
Jean-Pierre Rives - I was surprised he wasn't already in the category! Note - if kept (or listified), the current name should be changed, as it implies that these are all people who started off as artists and became sportspeople, when the opposite is often the case.
very interesting to learn about
Jean-Pierre Rives, thanks, and that's a good example of its functionality
Svedlundp (
talk) 09:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
List of sportspeople–artists sounds good in my opinion. I find it an interesting intersection as well and I agree on the idea of both listifying and/or renaming.
Svedlundp (
talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. No objection to listifying if desired, but we do not create a category for every possible "People who happen to be both X and Y" combination of occupations, if the intersection is not itself a
WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Listify Not a common defining feature, but unusual enough to warrant a list per above.
SFB 20:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I've moved it into article space at the title shown above (
List of sportspeople–artists) and started to fill it out. Needs more work though.
Grutness...wha? 01:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This came up at Redirects for Discussion, but it appears that the nominator there (
Backendgaming) may have emptied this category and made the redirect themself (I'm not sure on the history). I think categories for discussion is a better place to discuss this, since it largely asked what should be included in the category and whether it should be deleted.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk) 02:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- while this has been done out of proper process, we should acquiesce in the result.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - are there similar categories for other parts of the world? If so, the "... Asia" category could become a parent.
Grutness...wha? 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a subjective grouping and nearly all the contents are simply focused on East Asian educational culture. The idea of whether that constitutes some kind of overbearing pressure or not is in the eye of the beholder.
SFB 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lebanese communities outside Lebanon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: "X disapora by country" is a well-established category tree, but oddly the Lebanese diaspora (famously large and wide) lacked such a cat. I created
Category:Lebanese diaspora by country this week and request that the non-standard "communities" cat be merged into my newer standardized equivalent. Thanks!
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.